The effect of warm-up on swimming performance - UBI · 2017-02-08 · The effect of warm-up on...

UNIVERSIDADE DA BEIRA INTERIOR Ciências Sociais e Humanas

The effect of warm-up on swimming performance The impact of volume, intensity and post warm-up

recovery in elite swimmers

Henrique Pereira Neiva

Tese para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em

Ciências do Desporto (3º ciclo de estudos)

Orientador: Prof. Doutor Daniel A. Marinho Co-orientador: Prof. Doutor Mário C. Marques

Covilhã, Dezembro de 2015

iii

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

Stephen Hawking

Academic thesis submitted with the purpose of obtaining a doctoral degree in Sport Sciences

according to the provisions of Portuguese Decree-Law 107/2008 of 25 June.

v

Funding

The present thesis was supported by Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT)

Grant (SFRH/BD/74950/2010) under the Human Potential Operating Program, supported by the

European Social Found.

vii

Acknowledgments

A doctoral thesis is only possible with the important help of many people. Thus, I would like to

express my deep gratitude to those who contributed in some extend for this:

Thanks to Professors Daniel Marinho and Mário Marques for their supervision, guidance,

counseling and all the support. Thank you for your exceptional knowledge and patience all

these years;

Thanks to Professors João Paulo Vilas-Boas and Ricardo Fernandes, for their fundamental

contribute to my academic formation and increased interest about scientific research in

swimming, “our” common sport.

Thanks to Professors Tiago Barbosa, Mikel Izquierdo, João Viana, Ana Conceição, Pedro

Morouço, António José Silva, Hugo Louro, Ana Teixeira, Mário Espada, Pedro Silva MSc, co-

authors and collaborators in our research project. With all your experience and knowledge,

I learned from you more than you can even imagine.

Thanks to all my co-workers during experimental procedures. Thanks to my brother, Renato,

that helped me when “anything that could possibly go wrong, did”; to José Vilaça PhD for

his support with K4b2; to Catarina Figueiredo MSc, Catarina Pereira, Fábio Pereira, Lara

Bacelar MSc, Marco Silva MSc, Marta Marinho MSc, Nuno Moínhos MSc, thank you for your

collaboration.

Thanks to Professor Inês Ferreira for helping me over my PhD development.

Thanks to all the swimmers and friends that collaborated in our experimental procedures;

Thanks to António Vasconcelos MSc, fundamental in my growth as a coach and as a person

since my early ages;

The last but not the least, to all my family. Particularly, and it must be in Portuguese,

Obrigado Mãe, Pai e irmão. Qualquer palavra a justificar este agradecimento seria limitar

tudo o que me têm apoiado e feito por mim.

ix

List of Publications

This Doctoral Thesis is supported by the following papers:

Neiva, H.P., Marques, M.C., Barbosa, T.M., Izquierdo, M., & Marinho, D.A. (2014). Warm-

up and performance in competitive swimming. Sports Medicine, 44(3), 319-330.

Neiva, H.P., Marques, M.C., Fernandes, R.J., Viana, J.L., Barbosa, T.M., & Marinho, D.A.

(2014). Does warm-up have a beneficial effect on 100-m freestyle? International Journal of

Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(1), 145-150.

Neiva, H.P., Marques, M.C., Barbosa, T.M., Izquierdo, M., Viana, J.L., Teixeira, A.M., &

Marinho, D.A. (2015). Warm-up volume affects the 100 m swimming performance: a

randomized crossover study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(11), 3026-

3036.

Neiva, H.P., Marques, M.C., Barbosa, T.M., Izquierdo, M., Viana, J.L., Teixeira, A.M., &

Marinho, D.A. (2015). Warm-up for sprint swimming: race-pace or aerobic stimulation? A

randomized study. Submitted for publication to Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.

Neiva, H.P., Marques, M.C., Barbosa, T.M., Viana, J.L., & Marinho, D.A. (2015). The

influence of post warm-up recovery on 100 m freestyle performance: a randomized crossover

study. Submitted for publication to Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.

Beyond these papers, some preliminary studies were conducted as a preliminary approach to

warm-up issue:

Neiva, H.P, Morouço, P., Silva, A.J., Marques, M.C., & Marinho, D.A. (2011). The effect of

warm up on tethered front crawl swimming forces. Journal of Human Kinetics, (Special

Issue), 113-119.

Neiva, H.P., Morouço, P.G., Pereira, F.M., & Marinho, D.A. (2012). The effect of warm-up

in 50 m swimming performance. Motricidade, 8(S1), 13-18.

xi

Abstract

Warming-up before training or competition has become one of the most interesting topics in

sport sciences in the last years. The technical and scientific community has been aware of the

key role of warm up in swimming performance and the deepening of the knowledge on this

subject is presented as an asset to optimize training and competition performance. Thus, the

purpose of this work was to analyze the effects of warm-up on 100 m freestyle swimming

performance in high-level swimmers. In addition, we intended to verify the effects of different

volumes, intensities and post warm-up recovery times, by measuring the performance, and the

biomechanical, physiological and psychophysiological responses of the swimmers. For the

accomplishment of these purposes the following sequence was used: (i) reviewing the available

literature; (ii) comparing the warm-up and no warm-up condition on 100 m freestyle; (iii)

assessing three different volumes of warm-up, with the same intensity, and their effects on 100

m freestyle; (iv) analyzing two different intensities (race-pace vs. aerobic stimulation) on the

100 m race; (v) comparing two different post warm-up periods on the 100 m freestyle. The

main conclusions drawn were (i) there is a limited research on warm-up and its structure in

swimming; (ii) the warm-up improved swimming performance on 100 m freestyle race; (iii) the

volume of warm-up should be up to 1200 m, with the risk of impaired performances with longer

warm-ups; (iv) the stimulation of aerobic metabolism during warm-up is a reliable alternative

to traditional race-pace; (v) the positive effects of warm-up, as increased core temperature,

oxygen uptake, and heart rate are reduced over time and warm-up should be performed close

to the race; (vi) different biomechanical patterns were used in response to the different warm-

ups and these protocols could be used according to race strategy. In addition, it can be stated

that high-level swimmers presented an individual adaptation to each warm-up design. Our

results give clear remarks about the effects of volume, intensity and recovery periods and main

physiological and biomechanical changes. These findings can be used by coaches and researches

as a source for development of individual approaches or/and for further investigations.

Key words

Warm-up, swimming, performance, freestyle, physiology, biomechanics.

xiii

Resumo

O aquecimento antes do treino e da competição tem-se tornado um dos tópicos mais

interessantes de investigação em Ciências do Desporto nos últimos anos. A comunidade técnica

e científica está consciente do papel fundamental do aquecimento no rendimento em natação

e o aprofundar do seu conhecimento é apresentado enquanto um trunfo para otimizar a

performance de nado. Assim, o objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar os efeitos do aquecimento

na prova de 100 m livres em nadadores de elevado nível. Pretendemos analisar os efeitos da

utilização de diferentes volumes, intensidades e períodos de recuperação pós aquecimento,

através da avaliação da performance e de variáveis biomecânicas, fisiológicas e

psicofisiológicas. Para tal, foram adotados os seguintes passos: (i) revisão da literatura; (ii)

comparação entre a realização ou não de aquecimento antes dos 100 m livres; (iii) avaliação

de três diferentes volumes de aquecimento, com a mesma intensidade, e os seus efeitos nos

100 m livres; (iv) análise da influência de duas intensidades de aquecimento (ritmo de prova

vs. estimulação aeróbia) nos 100 m livres; (v) comparação de dois diferentes intervalos de

recuperação após o aquecimento. As principais conclusões que advêm do trabalho são as

seguintes: (i) existe pouca literatura e conhecimento limitado acerca dos efeitos do

aquecimento e da sua estrutura em natação; (ii) o aquecimento é benéfico para os 100 m livres;

(iii) um volume de aquecimento até aos 1200 m parece ser o mais apropriado para a otimização

dos 100 m livres, sendo que maiores volumes podem comprometer a performance; (iv) a

estimulação aeróbia durante o aquecimento é uma alternativa viável ao ritmo de prova

tradicional; (v) os efeitos positivos do aquecimento, como a temperatura, a frequência cardíaca

e o consumo de oxigénio, diminuem ao longo do tempo e o aquecimento deve ser realizado o

mais próximo possível da prova; (vi) existem diferentes respostas biomecânicas às diferences

condições testadas, informação que poderá ser útil para preparar a estratégia de prova. É ainda

de referir que os nadadores de elevado nível apresentam adaptações individuais em função de

cada aquecimento. Os efeitos do volume, intensidade e intervalos entre o aquecimento e a

prova, assim como as principais adaptações fisiológicas e biomecânicas, podem ser utilizados

por treinadores e investigadores para desenvolvimento de abordagens individualizadas e

investigações futuras.

Palavras-chave

Aquecimento, natação, performance, estilo livre, fisiologia, biomecânica.

xv

Resumen

El calentamiento antes del entrenamiento y de la competición se ha convertido en uno de los

temas más interesantes de la investigación en Ciencias del Deporte en los últimos años. La

comunidad técnica y científica es consciente del papel fundamental de calentamiento en la

natación y la mejora de su conocimiento se presenta como una ventaja para optimizar el

rendimiento durante la competición. Nuestro objetivo fue analizar los efectos del

calentamiento en los 100 m libres en nadadores de alto nivel. Así, se examinaran los efectos

del diferentes volúmenes, intensidades y períodos de recuperación post-calentamiento,

mediante la evaluación del desempeño y variables biomecánicas, fisiológicas y psicofisiológicas.

Para ello, se utilizaron los siguientes pasos: (i) la revisión de la literatura; (ii) la comparación

de la realización o no de calentamiento antes de los 100 m libres; (iii) la evaluación de tres

volúmenes de calentamiento, con la misma intensidad, y sus efectos sobre los 100 m estilo

libre; (iv) el análisis de la utilización de dos intensidades (ritmo vs. estimulación aeróbica)

antes de los 100 m libres; (v) comparar dos intervalos diferentes entre calentamiento y la

prueba. Las principales conclusiones que del trabajo son: (i) una escasez y conocimiento del

calentamiento y su estructura en la natación en la literatura; (ii) el calentamiento beneficia a

100 m libre; (iii) un volumen de calentamiento hasta 1.200 m parece ser el más adecuado para

la optimización de los 100 m libres, y volúmenes más grandes pueden comprometer el

rendimiento; (iv) la estimulación aeróbica durante el calentamiento es una alternativa viable

a lo ritmo tradicional; (v) los efectos positivos del calentamiento, como la temperatura, la

frecuencia cardiaca y el consumo de oxígeno, disminuye con el tiempo de reposo y el

calentamiento debe realizarse lo más cercano posible de la prueba; (vi) la existencia de

diferentes respuestas biomecánicas después de las condiciones ensayadas, se puede utilizar

para preparar la estrategia de prueba. Cabe señalar que los nadadores de alto nivel tienen

ajustes individuales a cada calentamiento. Las indicaciones sobre el volumen, intensidad y los

intervalos entre calentamiento y la prueba, así como las adaptaciones biomecánicas y

fisiológicas también pueden ser utilizados por los formadores y los investigadores como un punto

de partida para el desarrollo individualizado y para futuras investigaciones.

Palabras-clave

Calentamiento, natación, rendimiento, nado libre, fisiología, biomecánica.

xvii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements vii

List of Publications ix

Abstract xi

Resumo xiii

Resumen xv

Index of Figures xix

Index of Tables xxi

List of Abbreviations xxiii

Chapter 1. General Introduction 1

Chapter 2. Literature Review 5

Study 1. Warm-up and performance in competitive swimming 5

Chapter 3. Experimental Studies 25

Study 2. Does warm-up have a beneficial effect on 100 m freestyle? 25

Study 3. The effects of different warm-up volumes on the 100 m swimming

performance: a randomized crossover study 35

Study 4. Warm-up for sprint swimming: race-pace or aerobic stimulation? A

randomized study 51

Study 5. The influence of post warm-up recovery duration on 100 m

freestyle performance: a randomized crossover study 65

Chapter 4. General Discussion 77

Chapter 5. Overall Conclusions 83

Chapter 6. Suggestions for future research 85

Chapter 7. References 87

Appendix I 117

Appendix II 125

xix

Index of Figures

Chapter 3 Study 2.

Figure 1. Bland-Altman plots representing (A) the first 50 m lap time, (B) the second 50

m lap time, and (C) 100 m total time in the 2 trial conditions, with warm-up (WU) and

without warm-up (NWU). Average difference (solid line) and 95% CI (dashed lines) are

indicated (N = 20).

30

Figure 2. Comparison between the variations of the time (Δ50 m), stroke frequency

(ΔSF), stroke length (ΔSL), and stroke index (ΔSI) assessed in the first and second 50 m

laps of the 100 m (Δ = second – first), with warm-up (WU) and without warm-up (NWU).

*P ≤ 0.01, N = 20

30

Chapter 3. Study 3.

Figure 1 - Bland-Altman plots representing the 100 m time in the three trial conditions:

with standard warm-up (WU), with short warm-up (SWU) and with long warm-up.

Average difference line (solid line) and 95% CI (dashed lines) are indicated (N = 11)

44

Figure 2 - Comparison between the blood lactate concentrations ([La-]) (a), tympanic

temperature (b) and heart rate (c) values, assessed during the 30 min of recovery after

the 100 m, with standard warm-up (WU), short warm-up (SWU) and long warm-up

(LWU). *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, N = 11.

45

Chapter 3. Study 4.

Figure 1. Bland-Altman plots representing the 100 m time in the two trial conditions:

control warm-up (CWU) and experimental warm-up (WU). Average difference line (solid

line) and 95% CI (dashed lines) are indicated (N = 13).

60

Figure 2. Comparison between the oxygen uptake (VO2) (A), heart rate (B), Core

Temperature (C) (Tcore) and its net values (Tcorenet) (D) assessed during the 15 min of

recovery after the 100 m, with control warm-up (CWU) and experimental warm-up

(WU). N = 13.

61

Chapter 3. Study 5.

Figure 1. Physiological variables responses throughout the procedures: core

temperature (A), net values of core temperature (B), tympanic temperature (C), blood

lactate concentrations ([La-]; D), heart rate (E), Oxygen uptake (VO2; F). * Indicates

difference between the two conditions assessed (p < 0.01). Data presented as mean ±

SD (N = 11).

72

xxi

Index of Tables

Chapter 2. Study 1.

Table 1. Physiological, biomechanical and performance changes following active and/or

passive warm-up in swimming

9

Table 2. Possible recommendations for active warm-up prior to competitive swimming

22

Chapter 3. Study 2.

Table 1. Usual warm-up protocol 28

Table 2. Results for tested parameters in the 100 m trial, N = 20

29

Chapter 3. Study 3.

Table 1. Standard warm-up (WU), short warm-up (SWU) and low warm-up (LWU)

protocols.

39

Table 2. Mean ± SD values (95% confidence limits) of the physiological and

psychophysiological variables after warm-up (After WUP) and before trial, N = 11.

42

Table 3 - Mean ± SD values (95% confidence limits) of the 100 and 50 m lap times,

starting time (15 m), and biomechanical and efficiency variables, N = 11.

43

Table 4. Mean ± SD values (95% confidence limits) of the physiological responses to the

trial, N = 11.

44

Chapter 3. Study 4.

Table 1. Warm-up protocols 54

Table 2. Mean ± SD values of physiological and psychophysiological variables assessed

after warm-up (Post) and before trial (Pre-trial) during control (CWU) and experimental

(WU) procedures, N = 13.

58

Table 3 – Mean ± SD values of the 100 and 50m lap times, biomechanical, physiological

and psychophysiological variables assessed during control (CWU) and experimental

(WU) procedures, N = 13.

59

Chapter 3. Study 5.

Table 1 – Standard warm-up (WU) protocol. 68

Table 2. Mean ± SD values of the 100 and 50 m lap times, biomechanical and efficiency

variables during trial and acute responses of oxygen uptake (VO2peak), heart rate, blood

lactate concentrations, core (Tcore;Tcorenet) and tympanic temperatures, and ratings

of perceived exertion, N = 11.

70

xxiii

List of Abbreviations

BT Body temperature

Chol Cholesterol

CWU Control warm-up

EMG Electromyography signal

EWU Experimental warm-up

Fmax Maximal force

Fmean Mean force

HCO3 Bicarbonate

HCT Hematocrit

HR Heart rate

HRmax Maximal heart rate

IM Individual medley

l Arm length

[La-] Blood lactate concentrations

[La-]peak Highest value of blood lactate concentration post-trial

LWU Long warm-up

NWU Without warm-up

ƞρ Propelling efficiency

pCO2 Carbon dioxide pressure

PHF Peak horizontal force

pO2 Oxygen pressure

PP Plasma protein

PVF Peak vertical force

RBC Red blood cell

RP Race-pace

RPE Ratings of perceived exertion

SF Stroke frequency

SI Stroke index

SL Stroke length

SWU Short Warm-up

Tcore Core Temperature

Tcorenet Net values of core temperature

TG Triglyceride

TS Tethered swim

v Swimming velocity

VO2 Oxygen uptake

xxiv

VO2max Maximal oxygen uptake

VO2peak Peak oxygen uptake

WBC White blood cell

WU Usual or standard warm-up

1

Chapter 1. General Introduction

Warm up is a common practice that precedes most of athletic events and it is a widely accepted

routine to enhance performance and to prevent injuries (Ekstrand et al., 1983; Woods et al.,

2007). As the name suggests, an increase in muscle and body temperature is the major

contributing factor to positively influence performance. This rise in athletes’ temperature

results in multiple changes, such as the decreased time to achieve peak tension and relaxation

(Segal et al., 1986), the reduced viscous resistance of the muscles and joints (Wright, 1973),

the vasodilatation and increased muscle blood flow (Pearson et al., 2011), most likely resulting

in optimized aerobic function (Gray & Nimmo, 2001; Pearson et al., 2011), improved efficiency

of muscle glycolysis and high-energy phosphate degradation during exercise (Febbraio et al.,

2006) and increased nerve conduction rate (Karvonen, 1992).

The increase in muscle and core body temperature could be achieved with (active) or without

physical activity (passive). Any activity that raises the body’s temperature without exertion

such as hot showers, heated clothes, hot environments, could be considered as passive

procedures (Bishop, 2003a). However, active warm-up, involving physical exertion, is the

preferred and most applied method in almost all athletic events, with some studies reporting

additional effects beyond the increased temperature. Priming exercitation might stimulate the

buffering capacity, maintaining the acid-base balance of the body (Beedle & Mann, 2007;

Mandengue et al., 2005) and perhaps an increased baseline of oxygen uptake (VO2) at the start

of subsequent practice, that potentiate the aerobic system (Burnley et al., 2011). Additionally,

literature found a post activation potentiation after heavy loading activities that could increase

motor neuron excitability and influencing post performances (Saez Saez de Villarreal et al.,

2007). The movement during the priming physical activities also reduces muscle stiffness

(Proske et al., 1993), allowing an easier and efficient action.

Although these abovementioned changes theoretically improve the performance, the existing

research is far from being consensual. Several studies have reported improvements in

performance after warm-up in cycling (Burnley et al., 2005), running (Stewart & Sleivert, 1998)

or even specific activities as the vertical jump (Burkett et al., 2005). However, in other similar

activities the performances are impaired (Di Cagno et al., 2010; Bradley et al, 2007; Stewart,

& Sleivert, 1998; Tomaras, & MacIntosh, 2011), which is interesting and shows how warm-up

can be crucial to sports performance. Moreover, the combination of different variables, the

complexity of their relationship and the lack of a standardized warm-up, prevent the

characterization of a warm-up ideal design (Fradkin et al., 2010). This difficulty may be the

reason why athletes and their coaches commonly use this practice based on personal

experiences, developing their own different warm-up procedures.

Chapter 1 – General Introduction

2

In swimming this context is not different and scientific research showed ambiguous effects of

warm-up (Bobo, 1999; Mitchell & Huston, 1993; Robergs et al., 1990). In fact, these

investigations were not performed during many years, resulting in a lack of research and

restrictions. The first studies about warm-up in competitive swimming dated from the 50s,

showed that warming up could lead to 1% faster performances on distances up to 91 m (De Vries

et al., 1959; Thompson, 1958). The positive influence of warm-up was later confirmed for

longer distances, with a higher stroke length (SL) in 385.5 m of submaximal swimming (Houmard

et al., 1991) and lower lactate concentrations ([La-]) after 200 m of intense swimming (Robergs

et al., 1990). Yet, the positive effect of warm-up was then challenged by the findings of Mitchell

and Huston (1993), and Bobo (1999). The first authors found higher peaks in [La-] after 2 min

of high intensity swimming after warm-up while the others found no differences in a 91.4 m

performance between in-water warm-up, dry-land warm-up and no warm-up. The results were

not clear and even when the studies found increased race performances, those differences

were lower than 1%. Therefore, it seems relevant to examine the effect of warm-up on short

races, e.g. 100 m, complementing those findings with biomechanical and physiological

assessment (Study 2). Moreover, before knowing the effect of dry-land warm-up or passive

methods of warm-up, one should clearly know the effects of the specific in-water warm-up.

The performance depends on the magnitude of the response determined by several components

such as volume, intensity and recovery time of prior activities (Bishop et al., 2003). Some

changes in the characteristics of external load could influence performances but little is known

about this topic and about their effects on swimming performance. Warming for about 1400 m

allowed the swimmers to maintain higher SL (~4%) in the last meters of 365.8 m at 95% of

maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), with similar values of [La-] and heart rates (Houmard et al.,

1991), compared to a warm-up lower than 200 m. When testing maximal efforts, no differences

were found in the 91.4 m freestyle when comparing higher volumes (~2000m vs. ~4000m) of

warm-up (Arnett, 2002). However, Balilionis et al. (2012) have compared a 91.44 m warm-up

with a usual warm-up of ~1200 m and found increased performances on 45.72 m (~1%) when

the longer warm-up was used, but without physiological or biomechanical changes. Thus, the

effects of implementing different warm-up volumes remain unclear, with limited

biomechanical and physiological variables evaluated, and deeper analysis should be performed

(Study 3).

It is known that an improperly designed warm-up protocol could have adverse effects in

performance (Tomaras & MacIntosh, 2011) and the influence of volume is not the only

component that remains unclear when referring to swimming performance. The intensity of

warm-up could be essential. When high intensity is performed during warm-up it could lead to

early fatigue and compromise subsequent performance (Houmard et al., 1991). On the other

hand, an extremely low intensity warm-up could not trigger the necessary adaptations for

optimized performances (Mitchell & Huston, 1993). Hourmard et al. (1991) compared ~65% of


3

VO2max of continuous swimming with an intermittent set of 4 x 45.7 m at ~95% of VO2max and

no differences were observed in heart rate, SL or [La-] in 365.8 m submaximal swimming. These

results suggests no benefit of using a high-intensity set during warm-up, but limited conclusions

should be made as only submaximal performances and long distances were analyzed. In fact, a

high intensity set increased [La-] before and after the main task (Mitchell & Huston, 1993).

Nevertheless, these same authors found increased VO2 after the higher intensity warm-up,

which could express some cardiovascular alterations that could enhance aerobic system. So,

the real effects of intensity were not deeply investigated and further should be understood

about the different warm-up intensities in swimming performance (Study 4). In addition,

knowing that some authors claimed that warm-up may optimize performance by enhancing VO2

kinetics (Hughson, 2009; McDonald et al., 2001), it should be interesting to understand the

effects of an VO2 stimulation set instead of traditional race-pace sets.

Regarding the post-warm-up recovery, the literature demonstrated to be scarce and unclear.

Most studies about warm-up in swimming used a 10 min period of recovery between warm-up

and the swimming trial, and few data is known about the swimmers’ performances when

different recoveries are used. Zochowski et al. (2007) found that a 10 min recovery improved

200 m trial performances compared to a 45 min recovery. However, this 10 min is difficult to

implement in a swimming competition meeting, due to the fact that the swimmers must report

to a call room before the start of the race. Using higher rest periods, West et al. (2013) found

that 200 m swimming times were better with 20 min rest instead of 45 min. Nevertheless, to

the best of our knowledge, the literature only focused on the effects of different post warm-

up intervals in the 200 m swimming event, and different distances might demand different

recovery periods (Study 5).

Previous studies did not report variables from different scientific fields to explain the athlete’s

performance and hence being unable to provide a holistic understanding of the phenomenon.

Considering the abovementioned, the main purpose of this thesis was to analyze the effect of

warm-up on 100 m freestyle swimming performance in high-level swimmers. In addition, it was

our purpose to verify the impact of different volumes, intensities and post warm-up recoveries,

conducting a performance, biomechanical, physiological and psychophysiological evaluation of

the swimmers.

The thesis is developed according to the following sequence:

Chapter 2 presents a qualitative review based on the early studies regarding the warm-up

and performance in competitive swimming;

Chapter 3 shows the experimental studies developed to accomplish the main aim of this

thesis:

o Study 2 demonstrates the effects of warm-up on 100 m freestyle by comparing

a warm-up situation with no warm-up activities.


4

o Study 3 aims to investigate the use of three different warm-up volumes on the

100 m swimming race.

o Study 4 was developed based on the previous results and aims to compare the

race-pace set usually performed during warm-up with a set to elicit increase

VO2.

o Study 5 relies on the comparison of two post warm-up recoveries on the 100 m

performance, trying to understand the gap time effect on performance.

Then, a general discussion of the results is obtained on the studies performed (Chapter 4),

followed by the main conclusions and limitations of the thesis (Chapter 5). Some suggestions

for future research are also presented (Chapter 6). To better understand the procedures,

limitations and constrains, some pilot studies were performed previously for the main aim of

this thesis and are presented in appendix I and appendix II.

5

Chapter 2. Literature review

Study 1

Warm-up and performance in competitive swimming

Abstract

Warm-up before physical activity is commonly accepted to be fundamental, and any priming

practices are usually thought to optimize performance. However, specifically in swimming,

studies on the effects of warm-up are scarce, which may be due to the swimming pool

environment, which has a high temperature and humidity, and to the complexity of warm-up

procedures. The purpose of this study was to review and summarize the different studies on

how warming up affects swimming performance and to develop recommendations for improving

the efficiency of warm-up before competition. Most of the main proposed effects of warm-up,

such as elevated core and muscular temperatures, increased blood flow and oxygen delivery to

muscle cells and higher efficiency of muscle contractions, support the hypothesis that warm-

up enhances performance. However, while many researchers have reported improvements in

performance after warm-up, others have found no benefits to warm-up. This lack of consensus

emphasizes the need to evaluate the real effects of warm-up and optimize its design. Little is

known about the effectiveness of warm-up in competitive swimming, and the variety of warm-

up methods and swimming events studied makes it difficult to compare the published

conclusions about the role of warm-up in swimming. Recent findings have shown that warm-up

has a positive effect on the swimmer’s performance, especially for distances greater than 200

m. We recommend that swimmers warm-up for a relatively moderate distance (between 1000

to 1500 m) with a proper intensity (a brief approach to race-pace velocity) and recovery time

sufficient to prevent the early onset of fatigue and to allow the restoration of energy reserves

(8 to 20 min).

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

6

Introduction

Warm-up routines are common practice before training and competition in almost every sport.

For decades, practitioners have prescribed warm-ups to prevent injuries (Ekstrand et al., 1983)

and enhance the performance (De Bruyn-Prevost, 1980) of their athletes. The scientific

community supports the use of warm-up, which has been reported to increase muscle

temperature, stimulate the performance of muscle contraction, decrease the time to achieve

peak tension and relaxation (Segal et al., 1986) and reduce the viscous resistance of the muscles

and joints (Wright, 1973). Additionally, the hyperthermia induced by warm-up leads to

vasodilatation and increased muscle blood flow, most likely resulting in optimized aerobic

function due to the higher oxygen uptake during subsequent tasks (Pearson et al., 2011; Gray

& Nimmo, 2001). Febbraio et al. (1996) suggested that muscle temperature improves the

efficiency of muscle glycolysis and high-energy phosphate degradation during exercise, which

may be from increasing the dependence on anaerobic metabolism. We hypothesize that priming

procedures that increase the body temperature optimize both aerobic and anaerobic

metabolism in energy production during exercise.

Published reports also claim that warming up via physical activity might have some effects

beyond the temperature-related ones. Gray et al. (2002) detected a lower accumulation of

muscle lactate during a 30 s sprint on a cycle ergometer after active warm-up compared to

passive warm-up, despite the same starting temperature conditions. It was later confirmed that

physical activity stimulates buffering capacity, maintaining the acid-base balance of the body

(Beedle & Mann, 2007; Mandengue et al., 2005). Theoretically, the increased heart rate after

active warm-up (Andzel, 1978; Febbraio et al., 1996) and the higher baseline oxygen uptake at

the start of subsequent practice improve the oxygen delivery to the active muscles and

potentiate the aerobic energy system (Burnley et al., 2011). In addition, heavy loading activities

may induce high-frequency stimulation of motor neurons (French et al., 2003) for several

minutes afterwards, and this enhanced motor neuron excitability can result in a considerable

improvement in power production (Saez Saez de Villarreal et al., 2007; Sale, 2002). The

movement required for activity also reduces muscle stiffness (Proske et al., 1993) and increases

the range of motion of the muscles involved, possibly allowing for easier, more efficient action.

Recently, some concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the warm-up for

enhancing athletic performance and preventing injuries (Neiva et al., 2011; West et al., 2013;

Woods et al., 2007). Improvements in performance ranged from 1 to 20% in sports such as

cycling (Burnley et al., 2005) and running (Stewart & Sleivert, 1998) as well as in specific

activities such as vertical jumping (Burkett et al., 2005). Warm-up also helped athletes in team

sports; players were acutely ready to perform basketball, handball and baseball skills after

warm-up activities (Dumitru, 2010; Szymanski et al., 2011; Thompson, 1958). Nevertheless, in

other cases, performance was impaired after warm-up. The vertical jump height and gymnastic


7

technical leap performance were decreased after static stretching exercises (Bradley et al.,

2007; Di Cagno et al., 2010), running performance was reduced after high-intensity warm-up

(Stewart & Sleivert, 1998) or after a long rest period (Andzel, 1978), and cycling performance

was impaired after cyclists performed their usually long warm-up (Tomaras & MacIntosh, 2011).

Scientific research has not demonstrated the efficacy of warm-up. As a result, athletes and

coaches design the warm-up routines based on their individual experiences. The combination

of a large number of variables, the complexity of their relationship (e.g., volume, intensity and

recovery interval) and the lack of a standardized warm-up complicate characterization of

warm-up techniques (Fradkin et al., 2010). For example, there is no scientific evidence of the

effectiveness of warm-up in swimming, and studies have shown ambiguous effects of warm-up

on swimming performance (Bobo, 1999; Mitchell & Huston, 1993; Neiva et al., 2012; Robergs

et al., 1990). The variability of research designs (e.g., protocols, outcomes selected, swimming

events, and swimmers’ competitive level) makes it difficult to compare data. Therefore, the

purpose of the present review is to describe the effects of warm-up in swimming performance

and to recommend optimized warm-up strategies.

Literature Search

The MEDLINE, Scielo, SPORTDiscus, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar

databases were searched for studies that were published from January 1955 until May 2013

(including electronic publications that were available ahead of print). This review includes

studies about the effects of warm-up on swimming performance, which were identified using

the following key-terms, individually and/or combined: “warm-up”, “warm-up effects”;

“priming exercise”; “pre-exercise”, “prior exercise”, “warm-up and performance” and “warm-

up and swimming performance”. Articles were also gathered based on references from other

relevant articles. Those articles with restricted full text online were found in hardcopy form in

library archives.

Studies were included in the review if they fulfilled the following selection criteria: (i) the

studies were written in English; (ii) they were published in a peer-reviewed journal; (iii) they

contained research questions on the effects of active and/or passive warm-up in swimming; (iv)

the main outcome reported was a physiological (e.g., lactate, temperature, heart rate, or rate

of perceived effort), biomechanical (e.g., stroke length, stroke frequency, or force) or

performance (e.g., time and velocity) measure; and (v) healthy human participants were used.

Review articles (qualitative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis) were not

considered.


8

In the initial search, 236 studies were identified. After reading the titles, 59 articles were

chosen for abstract reading. Those that were clearly not relevant or did not meet inclusion

criteria were eliminated. A total of 18 original research studies on the effects of warm-up on

swimming were included in our final analysis (Table 1). Fifteen studies focused on active warm-

up, two studies focused on passive warm-up, and the remaining study investigated both types

of practices.

Studying warm-up involves a large number of variables that interact with each other and

possibly condition the results. Because of the risk in separating those variables, the findings

and literature limitations were analyzed after the papers had been divided up according to

active warm-up and its sub-items (swim volume, intensity, recovery/rest interval, and

related/non-related warm-up) and passive warm-up.


9

Auth

or

Subje

cts

W

arm

-up

Post

warm

-up t

est

Acti

ve

Pass

ive

Changes*

Rest

(m

in)

Inte

rventi

on

Test

Para

mete

rs

Ass

ess

ed

Main

resu

lts*

Volu

me(m

) In

tensi

ty

Dry

M

ode

Carl

ile

(1956)

10 T

(M

+F)

A

1

ND

ND

A1vs.

A2

A2:N

36.6

m

v

v:A

1>A

2

Hot

show

er:

8m

in

Thom

pso

n

(1958)

60 U

T

(M)

A1

A

2

5

A1vs.

A2vs.

A4

A3vs.

A4;

A4:N

T1:2

7.4

m

Max

T2:5

min

M

ax

T1:v

T

2:L

aps

v:A

1>A

2=A

4

Laps:

A3>A

4

110

Modera

te

Calist

henic

s A

3

2.5

min

75% M

ax

DeVri

es

(1959)

13 T

(M

) A

1

A2

A3:

N

D

“bri

ef”

A

1vs.

A2vs.

A3vs.

A4vs.

A5

A5:N

91.4

m

Max

(Cra

wl,

bre

ast

, fl

y)

Tim

e

Tim

e:A

1<A

2,3, 4

,5

457.2

Fre

ely

Calist

henic

s cir

cuit

M

ass

age:1

0m

in

A4:

Hot

Show

er:

6m

in

Roberg

s et

al.

(1990)

8 T

(M

) A

1

[La

- ]:A

1>A

2

[H+]:

A1>A

2

HCO

3-:

A1<A

2

10

A1vs.

A2

A2:N

200m

120% V

O2m

ax

(Fro

nt

cra

wl)

HR;p

CO

2;p

O2

;HCO

3-;

[La

- ]

[La

- ]:A

1<A

2

pCo

2:A

1<A

2

HR:A

1>A

2

400

400 k

ick

4x50

82% V

O2m

ax

45% V

O2m

ax

111% V

O2m

ax

Houm

ard

et

al.

(1991)

8 T

(M

) A

1

No

5

A1vs.

A2vs.

A3vs.

A4

A4:N

365.8

m

95%VO

2m

ax

(Fro

nt

cra

wl)

VO

2;H

R;R

PE;

[La

- ];S

L

HR:A

4>A

1,2

,3

[La

- ]:A

4>A

1,2

,3

SL:A

2, 3

>A

1,4

4x45.7

95% V

O2m

ax

A2

1371.6

65% V

O2m

ax

A3

1188.7

4x45.7

65% V

O2m

ax

95% V

O2m

ax

Mit

chell a

nd

Hust

on

(1993)

10 T

(M

) A

1

HR:A

1<A

2

VO

2m

ax:A

1<A

2

[La

- ]:A

1,3<A

2

5

A1vs.

A2vs.

A3

A3:N

T

1:1

83m

110%VO

2m

ax

T2:T

S

Max

(Fre

est

yle

)

[La

- ];

HR;T

ime;

SL;V

O2m

ax

T1:

HR:A

2>A

3

[La

- ]:A

2>A

1,3

T2:

HR:A

1,2>A

3

366

70% V

O2m

ax

A2

4x46

110% V

O2m

ax

Table

1.

Physi

olo

gic

al,

bio

mechanic

al and p

erf

orm

ance c

hanges

follow

ing a

cti

ve a

nd/or

pass

ive w

arm

-up in s

wim

min

g.


10

Table

1. C

ontin

ued.

Auth

or

Subje

cts

Warm

-up

Post w

arm

-up te

st

Activ

e

Passiv

e

Changes*

Rest

(min

) In

terv

entio

n

Test

Para

mete

rs Asse

ssed

Main

resu

lts*

Volu

me(m

) Inte

nsity

Dry

M

ode

Rom

ney a

nd

Neth

ery

(1

993)

12 T

(8

M, 4

F)

A1

A

2

ND

3

A1 v

s.A2 v

s.A3

A3 :N

91.4

m

Max

(Fre

esty

le)

Tim

e

Tim

e:A

1 <A

3

5 m

in

RPE=12

5 m

in ro

pe

5 m

in

calisth

enic

s

circ

uit

5 m

in ro

pe

12 x

22.9

Up to

RP

5 m

in

RPE=14

Akam

ine

and T

aguchi

(1998)

6 T

(M)

A

1 N

D

10

A1 v

s.A2

4 m

in k

ick

80% M

ax

RBC;H

CT;

WBC;P

P;

Chol;T

G;[L

a-]

HR;E

MG

HCT,W

BC,P

P,C

hol:

A1 >

A2

HR:A

1 <A

2

[La

-]:A1 <

A2

EM

G:A

1 <A

2

Bath

36ºC

, CO

2

300ppm

:20m

in

A2

Bath

36ºC

:20m

in

Bobo (1

999)

23 T

(ND)

A1

A

2 :

ND

5

A1 v

s.A2 v

s.A3

A3 :N

5 x

91.4

m

Max (I=

3m

in)

(Fre

esty

le)

Tim

e

No c

hanges

731.5

M

odera

te

Bench p

ress 3

x6,

50%1RM

Arn

ett

(2002)

10 T

(6

M, 4

F)

A1

A1 =

A2 =

A3 :

Modera

te

BT:A

M<PM

5

AM

:A1 v

s.A2

PM

:A1 v

s.A3

AM

vs.P

M

91.4

m

Max

(Fre

esty

le)

Tim

e;R

PE;B

T Tim

e:A

2(A

M) >

A1,3

(PM

) ; BT:A

1(A

M) <

A2(A

M),

A1(P

M), A

3 (P

M)

2011.7

A

2

4023.4

A

3 663.9

Zochow

ski

et a

l. (2007)

10 T

(5

M, 5

F)

A1

H

R:R

1 >R

2 R

1 :10

R2 :4

5

R1 v

s.R2

200m

M

ax

(1st

techniq

ue)

HR;[L

a-]

RPE; T

ime

Tim

e:R

1 <R

2 H

R:R

1 >R

2

300

Easy

6x100

Pull /

kic

k

10x50

Specific

RP

100

Easy


11

Auth

or

Subje

cts

W

arm

-up

Post

warm

-up t

est

Acti

ve

Pass

ive

Changes*

Rest

(m

in)

Inte

rventi

on

Test

Para

mete

rs

Ass

ess

ed

Main

resu

lts*

Volu

me(m

) In

tensi

ty

Dry

M

ode

Nepocaty

ch

et

al.

(2010)

10 M

ast

(4

M,6

F)

A1

A

3

RPE:A

5<A

1,2

HR:A

4<A

2

3

A1vs.

A2vs.

A5

A2vs.

A3vs.

A4

A5:N

45.7

m

Max

(Fre

est

yle

)

Tim

e;R

PE;H

R;

SR

HR:A

5<A

2;

A2>A

3,4

45.7

40% M

ax

5x1m

in U

pper

body v

ibra

tion

at

22H

z

45.7

90% M

ax

A2

>457.2

>46m

90%M

ax

A4

A3+A

1

Kilduff

et

al.

(2011)

9 T

(7

M,

2F)

A1

A

2

N

D

8

A1vs.

A2

15m

sta

rt

Max

Sta

rt t

ime;

Jum

p F

orc

e

(PH

F;P

VF)

PH

F:A

1<A

2

PVF:A

1<A

2

300

Easy

3x 8

7% 1

RM

Squat

6x100

Pull /

kic

k

10x50

Specif

ic R

P

100

Easy

Neiv

a e

t al.

(2

011)

10 T

(M

) A

1

N

D

10

A1vs.

A2

A2:N

30s

TS

Max

(Fro

nt

cra

wl)

Fm

ax;F

mean;

[La

- ];R

PE

Fm

ax:A

1>A

2

Fm

ean:A

1>A

2

1000

Fre

ely

Neiv

a e

t al.

(2

012)

10 T

(M

) A

1

N

D

10

A1vs.

A2

A2:N

50m

M

ax

(Fro

nt

cra

wl)

Tim

e;[

La

- ];

RPE

No c

hanges

1000

Fre

ely

Balilionis

et

al.

(2012)

16 T

(8

M,

8F)

A1

H

R:A

2>A

3

RPE:A

2>A

1,3

3

A1vs.

A2;v

s.A

3

A3:N

45.7

m

Max

(Fre

est

yle

)

Tim

e;D

ivin

g

dis

tance;

Reacti

on;R

PE;

HR;S

R

Tim

e:A

1>A

2

HR:A

1<A

2

45.7

40% M

ax

45.7

90% M

ax

A2

~1200

Fre

ely

Table

1.

Conti

nued.


12

Table

1. C

ontin

ued.

Auth

or

Subje

cts

Warm

-up

Post w

arm

-up te

st

Activ

e

Passiv

e

Changes*

Rest

(min

) In

terv

entio

n

Test

Para

mete

rs Asse

ssed

Main

resu

lts*

Volu

me(m

) Inte

nsity

Dry

M

ode

West e

t al.

(2013)

8 T

(4

M, 4

F)

A1

Tcore

:R1 >

R2

R

1 :20

R2 :4

5

R1 v

s.R2

200m

M

ax

(Fre

esty

le)

Tcore

;[La

-]; H

R;R

PE;T

ime;

SR

Tim

e:R

1 <R

2 [L

a-]:R

1 >R

2

400;

200 p

ull

200 k

ick

200 d

rill

200 IM

HR 4

0 to

60

belo

w H

Rm

ax

4x50

free

RP

200 fre

e

Easy

Neiv

a e

t al.

(2013)

20 T

(1

0M

, 10F)

A1

N

D

10

A1 v

s.A2

A2 :N

100m

M

ax

(Fre

esty

le)

Tim

e;[L

a-];

RPE;S

F;D

PS;S

I Tim

e: A

1 <A

2 D

PS: A

1 >A

2 SI: A

1 >A

2 300

Easy

2x100

Hig

h D

PS

8x50

Kic

k/drills;

RP

100

Easy

AM

– Morn

ing; A

x – warm

-up n

um

ber; B

T – b

ody te

mpera

ture

; Chol – c

hole

stero

l; DPS – d

istance p

er stro

ke; E

MG

– ele

ctro

myogra

phy sig

nal; F

– Fem

ale

; Fm

ax – m

axim

al fo

rce;

Fm

ean – m

ean fo

rce; H

CO

3- - b

icarb

onate

; HCT

– hem

ato

crit; H

R – h

eart ra

te; H

Rm

ax – m

axim

al h

eart ra

te; I – in

terv

al; IM

– indiv

idual m

edle

y; [La

-] – blo

od la

cta

te c

oncentra

tion;

M – M

ale

; Mast – M

aste

r swim

mers; M

ax – m

axim

al; N

- no w

arm

-up; N

D – n

ot d

ete

rmin

ed; p

CO

2 – carb

on d

ioxid

e p

ressu

re; P

HF – p

eak h

orizo

nta

l forc

e; P

M – a

ftern

oon; p

O2

– oxyg

en p

ressu

re; P

P – p

lasm

a p

rote

in; p

pm

– parts p

er m

illion; P

VF – p

eak v

ertic

al fo

rce; R

– rest; R

1 – teste

d re

st situatio

n o

ne; R

2 – teste

d re

st situatio

n tw

o; R

BC – re

d

blo

od c

ell; R

P – ra

ce p

ace; R

PE – ra

tings o

f perc

eiv

ed e

xertio

n; R

M – re

petitio

n m

axim

um

; SI – stro

ke in

dex; S

L – stro

ke le

ngth

; SR – stro

ke ra

te; T

– train

ed sw

imm

ers; T

1 – te

st one; T

2 – test tw

o; T

core

– core

tem

pera

ture

; TG

– trigly

cerid

e; T

S – te

there

d sw

im; U

T – U

ntra

ined; v

- velo

city

; VO

2 – oxygen u

pta

ke; V

O2m

ax – m

axim

al o

xygen u

pta

ke;

WBC

- white

blo

od c

ell. * re

sults a

re p

rese

nte

d in

the va

riable

s that w

ere

statistic

ally

signific

ant (p

≤ 0

.05)


13

Active Warm-Up and Swimming Performance

Active warm-up is any act of exercising, involving specific and/or non-specific body movements,

with the purpose of increasing metabolic activity and heat production in preparation for an

upcoming main activity (Shellock & Prentice, 1985; Woods et al., 2007). Active warm-up is

traditionally the preferred method used by practitioners and is the most commonly investigated

type; 89% of the studies about warm-up in swimming are about active warm-up. Improvements

were shown only in 67% of the twelve studies that compared the use of active warm-up with no

warm-up. Five of these studies showed an improvement in performance after warm-up, and

three others suggested positive effects in the physiological and biomechanical changes. The

remaining studies did not find that warm-up had any effect on swimming performance (Table

1).

The first studies suggested that warm-up allowed the swimmers to go 1% faster for short

distances (up to 91 m)(De Vries, 1959; Thompson, 1958). This positive influence was later

confirmed for long distances, with a higher stroke length (~0.07 m) observed in the final meters

of 368.5 m (Houmard et al., 1991) and lower lactate concentrations (~2 mmol/l) after 200 m

of intense swimming (Robergs et al., 1990). There were early ideas that priming exercises are

beneficial to performance, but higher peaks in the lactate concentration after 2 min of high-

intensity swimming (13.66 ± 2.66 vs. 9.53 ± 2.22 mmol/l, p ≤ 0.05) have been reported (Mitchell

& Huston, 1993). Additionally, Bobo (1999) failed to find significant differences in 91.4 m

performance between three conditions (exercises in the water, dry land exercises, and no

warm-up). The methods used could be questioned, as performance was assessed using a set of

five repetitions of 91.4 m freestyle at maximum intensity. In addition, beyond comparing the

mean times of all repetitions performed, the author analyzed the best repetition performed,

which is similar to a study that tested a single repetition. A recent study found that usual warm-

up leads to improved 100 m swimming performance, prolonging the controversy (Neiva et al.,

2013).

There have been inconclusive results on a swimmer’s performance for shorter distances after

warm-up. One study reported that warm-up did not have any favorable effects on 50 m crawl

performance (Neiva et al., 2012), while participants in another study had a trend toward

significantly faster times on the 45.7 m freestyle (~0.2 s, p = 0.06) and higher propelling force

with 30 s of maximal tethered swimming (~13% for the mean force and 18% for the maximal

force, p ≤ 0.05), as reported by Balilionis et al. (2012) and Neiva et al. (2011), respectively, for

warm-up . However, there were found no differences were found among the other variables

measured in these studies (e.g., perceived exertion, highest post blood lactate concentration,

stroke rate, dive distance and reaction time), which weakens these findings.


14

The effects of active warm-up depend on several components such as the volume, intensity and

recovery time (Bishop, 2003a; Bishop, 2003b). Some changes in the characteristics of the

external training/warm-up load could be essential to influencing the subsequent performance

and the results obtained. Furthermore, dry-land movements are usually performed before

swimmers enter the pool, and the effects of these movements should not be disregarded. The

relevance of these presented categories and their effects on swimming performance require

deeper analysis.

Dry-land Warm-Up

Dry-land warm-up is any type of active practice performed out of the water; dry-land warm-up

includes calisthenics, strength/activation exercises and stretching. Swimmers often perform

some sort of physical activity out of the water (e.g., arm rotation) before entering the water

to activate the body. However, these exercises are used to complement and not as an

alternative to the in-water warm-up. Six studies have focused on the effects of dry-land warm-

up as a different type of active warm-up other than the usual in-water procedures.

Three studies have shown that the use of calisthenics exercises does not influence swimming

performance compared to the no warm-up condition (De Vries, 1959; Romney & Nethery, 1993;

Thompson, 1958). Although there were no statistically significant differences, the results of

Romney and Nethery (1993) showed that swimmers were 0.65 s faster in the 91.4 m freestyle

with dry-land warm-up than without warm-up. This difference corresponds to an increase of

1.23% in the performance, which can substantially affect a swimming race.

With regard to strength exercises, Bobo (1999) found no differences in the 91.4 m freestyle

between no warm-up and bench press practice. The author claimed that the amount of weight

used may not have been heavy enough to stimulate the swimmers and may have interfered with

the results. In fact, Kilduff et al. (2011) showed no differences in the 15 m starting time after

activation with loaded squats (3 x 87% of 1 maximal repetition) compared with in-water warm-

up. These weight exercises with a high load can have positive effects by inducing high-

frequency stimulation of motor neurons (French et al., 2003), resulting in an improved rate of

force production, which has already been confirmed for explosive efforts (Saez Saez de

Villarreal et al., 2007). Strength exercises involving large major muscle groups, with few

repetitions and high loads, could better prepare swimmers for competing.

An interesting method of dry-land exercise was used by Nepocatych et al. (2010) in master

swimmers, adapting a swim bench with an attached vibration device. This allowed the

swimmers to simulate the proper swimming technique while being exposed to five sets of one-

minute vibrations. The authors found no differences in the 45.7 m freestyle time between the

vibrations and in-water warm-up. Although they are not easy to apply, developments could


15

arise from this research, and new alternative warm-up procedures should be investigated and

applied to higher-level swimmers.

In most swim meets, there is a considerable time interval between the in-water warm-up and

the swimming event, diminishing its possible beneficial effects (West et al., 2013). Moreover,

some facilities do not have an extra swimming pool available, requiring swimmers to rely on

alternatives to in-water warm-up. Dry-land warm-up is as a possible warm-up procedure, which

is supported by some studies. It is also recommended that the whole body should be stimulated

instead of focusing on specific muscle groups. To the authors’ knowledge, no study on the

addition of these practices to in-water warm-up has been conducted, even though it could be

a method of optimizing the swimmer latency period between the warm-up and the swimming

event.

Swimmers commonly use stretching exercises, but, to the best of our knowledge, no study has

been conducted on the effects of stretching on swimming performance. Additionally, little

attention has been given to the question of stretching as a practice that influences the injury

risk. By reducing muscle strain and increasing the range of motion of joints (Ekstrand et al.,

1983; Hadala & Barrios, 2009), stretching is expected to reduce the resistance of the

movement, allowing for easier movement that optimizes the activity and prevents muscle and

joint injuries. Despite these possible benefits, pre-exercise static stretching does not produce

a reduction in the risk of overuse injuries (Pope et al., 2000), and it could lead to a severe loss

of strength and performance impairment (Winchester et al., 2008). Yet, a decrease in strength

when using dynamic stretching exercises has not been demonstrated (Hough et al., 2009),

suggesting that stretching may be part of a warm-up routine if these are usual practices of the

swimmers. Further investigation is needed to determine the effects of stretching alone as well

as in combination with other warm-up activities.

In-Water Warm-Up: the Effect of Volume

The acute effects of different warm-up volumes on swimming performance have been

previously researched in four studies; two found positive effects for volumes between 1000 m

and 1500 m compared to a lower volume (i.e., lower than 200 m). A higher volume (1371.6 m)

allows the swimmers to maintain higher stroke length (3.76%) in the last meters of 365.8 m at

~95% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), with similar values of blood lactate concentration

and heart rate (Houmard et al., 1991). This was later corroborated for shorter testing distances,

verifying better 45.7 m performance (1.22%) after warming up for approximately 1300 m (men:

1257 ± 160 m; women: 1314 ± 109 m) instead of a 91.44 m warm-up (Balilionis et al., 2012). It

is possible that the lower volume was not sufficient to cause significant metabolic changes

during the performance trial. In fact, the same result was verified by Nepocatych et al. (2010)


16

in master swimmers, with no changes in the 45.7 m freestyle after two short warm-ups (91.4

m and more than 450 m).

The remaining study on the influence of warm-up volumes did not find differences in the 91.4

m freestyle when warming up for either 2011.7 m or 4023.4 m with similar intensities (Arnett,

2002). Swimmers may expend too much energy during warm-up, or they may not have enough

time after warm-up to replenish their phosphocreatine and adenosine triphosphate levels,

compromising the energy supply and negatively affecting their performance. For instance,

swimmers traditionally complete long warm-ups, even for short races, to achieve greater water

sensitivity and to be better prepared for the competitive event. However, a long duration of

exercise has a higher energy consumption that can contribute to the early onset of muscle

fatigue, especially for high intensities (Hawley et al., 1989).

When subjected to a continuous activity at moderate intensity, the body increases its

temperature and stabilizes between 10 and 20 min after the start (Bishop, 2003a). Although

this time could be set as a rule of thumb, the volume of the warm-up performed before

swimming competitions differs considerably. The first study on active warm-up verified that

swimming for 110 m or 2.5 min (Thompson, 1958) positively affected the swimming

performance. The level of the swimmers (untrained) may explain these positive results with

such a light warm-up volume. With lower physical preparedness, a shorter volume is required

to activate the body to the main task. A slightly longer warm-up as required for De Vries (1959)

allowed verification of the improvements in the swimming performance of competitive

swimmers (457 m).

Nevertheless, the volumes presented were completed in less than 10 min; this could be the

reason why the following studies focused on longer warm-ups. Using the control condition of

no warm-up, the 91.4 m and 100 m freestyle times and a propelling force in 30 s of tethered

swimming were improved after approximately 15 min of swimming (~1000) (Neiva et al., 2011;

Neiva et al., 2013; Romney & Nethery, 1993). Moreover, a warm-up of 1000 m reduced the

changes in the acid-base balance after 200 m (2 min) of intense swimming (Robergs et al.,

1990).

There are some studies in which the performance was similar or even impaired after warm-up

when compared to the no warm-up condition. There were no differences in the 91 m freestyle

after 731.5 m of moderate swimming (Bobo, 1999) or on the 50 m front crawl after 1000 m of

habitual warm-up (Neiva et al., 2012). Some possible reasons for these results are the time

between the warm-up and maximal swimming (not allowing a sufficient time to recover) and/or

the volume and intensity of the warm-up, which most likely were not sufficient to cause

desirable metabolic effects.


17

We propose a total warm-up volume of a 15-20 min duration (between 1000 and 1500 m) for

swimming events up to 3-4 min. There is a trend toward increasing the volume of warm-up in

the morning. The reasoning behind this is the need for extra body activation due to the

adaptation to the circadian rhythm. However, Arnett (2002) found that the swimmers still

perform better on the 91.4 m in the afternoon even when a longer warm-up (4023.4 m vs.

2011.7 m) was performed in the morning (58.48 ± 5.69 s and 56.86 ± 4.87 s, respectively;

p≤0.05). This result suggests that performance is significantly higher in the late afternoon,

independent of the previous warm-up volume performed.

In-Water Warm-Up: the Effect of Intensity

The two studies on the use of different warm-up intensities in swimming found no effects on

performance. Houmard et al. (1991) were the first authors to compare the effects of two

different intensities of priming-exercises on performance (~65% VO2max of continuous

swimming vs. warm-up including 4 x 45.7 m at ~95% VO2max), and no differences were found

in the heart rate, stroke length or blood lactate concentration after 365.8 m front crawl at

~95% VO2max. Because the volume was the same in the two experimental conditions, the study

did not use a specific, intensive set to optimize performance. These conditions may result in

extra energy expenditure and most likely influenced the concentration of metabolites, thus

impairing swimming performance. In fact, warming up at 110% VO2max instead of 70% VO2max

led to elevated lactate concentrations (13.66 ± 2.66 vs. 9.53 ± 2.22 mmol/l, p≤0.05) after 183

m freestyle at high-intensity (Mitchell & Huston, 1993). The 5 min recovery period after warm-

up could have been insufficient for reducing the residual effects of the priming exercises. The

accumulation of lactate was higher after high-intensity warm-up (6.97 ± 1.97 vs. 2.27 ± 0.81

mmol/l, p≤0.05), which could have contributed to the higher values obtained after

performance. Additionally, the lower volume performed during the high-intensity warm-up

compared to the low-intensity warm-up did not allow a sufficient activation of the aerobic

metabolism. However, the heart rate (159.9 ± 7.7 vs. 148.0 ± 9.5 bpm, p≤0.05) and VO2max

(4.18 ± 0.45 vs. 3.23 ± 0.24 l/min, p≤0.05) after the warm-up showed cardiovascular alterations

that might be indicative of enhanced aerobic metabolism for the high-intensity priming

exercises, regardless of the volume performed.

Despite the uncertainties about including high-intensity swimming sets in the warm-up

procedures, it seems better to use high-intensity swimming sets instead of not warming up.

Robergs et al. (1990) found that lactate concentrations after 200 m of intensive front crawl

swimming were lower when the warm-up included 4x50 m at 111% VO2max (8.7 ± 0.8 mmol/l

vs. 10.9 ± 0.5 mmol/l, p≤0.05). Furthermore, including a short distance swimming set with

increased intensity over the repetitions was effective for 91 m maximal freestyle (Romney &

Nethery, 1993). The time performed was reduced by 0.75 s compared to when there was no

previous warm-up; thus, short distances at race-pace could optimize performance. Thus, a


18

short-distance set that is built up from low intensity to race-pace velocity in the last repetition

could be used to improve subsequent performance by stimulating the energy systems that are

recruited in the competitive event (Bishop, 2003a; Bishop, 2003b). Nevertheless, when high-

intensity swimming is performed during warm-up, it should be used with caution to avoid the

early fatigue and compromising the subsequent swimming performance.

Recovery Time After Warm-Up

Active warm-up seems to improve the performance with periods of recovery up to 20 min,

mainly related to temperature mechanisms (Bishop, 2003b; West et al., 2013). The time gaps

between the end of the in-water warm-up and the start of the competition/test used in the

research studies were 3 min (Balilionis et al., 2012; Romney & Nethery, 1993), 5 min (Bobo,

1999; Mitchell & Huston, 1993), 8 min (Kilduff et al., 2011), and 10 min (Neiva et al., 2011;

Neiva et al., 2012; Neiva et al., 2013; Robergs et al., 1990). Nevertheless, according to our

knowledge, the effect of different time intervals between warm-up and the main task was only

studied by Zochowski et al. (2007) and West et al. (2013). The 200 m times were 1.38% and

1.48% better with 10 min (Zochowski et al., 2007) and 20 min rest periods (West et al., 2013),

respectively, instead of 45 min of rest. The maintenance of an elevated core temperature

during shorter intervals (West et al., 2013) and the higher heart rate at the start of exercise

potentially increased the baseline oxygen uptake (Zochowski et al., 2007) are the possible

mechanisms responsible for the improved performance. In addition, the post activation

potentiation effect of warm-up, which happens around the 8th min of recovery (Kilduff et al.,

2011), possibly allowed the swimmers to start at an optimized power.

In real competition venues, it is almost impossible to take less than 8-10 min between finishing

the warm-up and the swimming event. Warming up is more effective when it is sufficiently

intense to activate the physiological processes that will be required in the competition event,

with a recovery time that should be between 8 to 20 min, allowing for replenishment of

phosphocreatine (Özyener et al., 2001). The literature only focuses on the effects of different

intervals in the 200 m swimming event, and the various competitive distances and techniques

could demand different recovery periods. Moreover, considering the studies of Saez Saez de

Villarreal et al., (2007) it would be interesting to know how different muscle activations (e.g.,

using high-intensity exercises or loaded concentric actions) can extend the effects of warm-up

as well as how swimmers can benefit from improved performance after a longer rest.


19

Passive Warm-Up and Swimming Performance

Increases in muscle and core body temperature could be achieved without physical activity by

the use of external heating, such as hot showers, saunas and heated vests (Bishop, 2003a).

These practices are commonly known as passive warm-up, through which the swimmers most

likely benefit from the effects of temperature-related mechanisms without spending energy. A

variation in the muscle temperature of 1ºC improves the muscle’s contractile properties and

modifies performance by 2-5% (Racinais & Oksa, 2010). Therefore, passive warm-up could be

suggested as a practice for maintaining the temperature between the warm-up and the

swimming event. However, heating cannot exceed the 39º C for the core temperature, as

overheating negatively affects the motor drive and muscular performance (Racinais & Oksa,

2010).

Three studies examined the effects of different passive procedures on swimming performance

with conflicting results. Carlile (1956) demonstrated that swimmers submitted to 8 min of a hot

shower or a 10 min massage attained 1% higher swim velocity in 36.6 m than swimmers without

warm-up procedures. Conversely, De Vries (1959) verified that a 10 min massage did not

influence the 91.44 m performance, which was instead positively influenced by active warm-

up. Thus, while the first study noted the positive influence of passive warm-up in swimming

performance, there have been more studies questioning these results. The applicability of these

findings should be weighed, as several decades have passed from the time when research

occurred. In fact, although there are few studies about active warm-up in swimming and the

findings are contradictory, the gap is even larger in regard to passive warm-up. The large range

of passive procedures, the unfamiliarity with some of those techniques and a possible deviation

of attention to the active warm-up, which is the most relevant form of pre-exercise, could be

some of the reasons for this scarcity.

The understanding of the effects of different passive procedures is also important for optimizing

swimming performance. Two different practices of passive heating were tested, and a

carbonated bath at 36ºC was more effective than a normal bath at the same temperature and

duration of 4 min of kicking exercise (Akamine & Taguchi, 1998). The authors proposed that

this method be adopted by swimmers because it tends to reduce the lactate concentration,

heart rate and electromyography response of the rectus femoris, suggesting higher muscle

efficiency and less fatigue. However, the low experience level of the swimmers and the non-

existence of comparison with active warm-up call into question its efficiency.

Currently, there is no evidence-based information about the effects of passive warm-up

procedures in swimming performance and the unclear indications cannot support the reliably

of these methods, making them uncommon. However, it is not unusual to see swimmers

completely dressed up (sometimes with a jacket over a sweat suit), near starting blocks, just


20

before starting the race. The use of external sources of heating most likely allows the swimmers

to extend the effects of the active warm-up that was performed some time before. Beyond

investigating the effects of passive warm-up, we should try to understand how it could be used

when there is a long resting time after the active warm-up or even as a complement to active

warm-up.

Effect on Different Performance Events

The Olympic competition schedule for swimming includes distances from 50 m to 1500 m in the

pool and 10000 m in open-water swimming. As presented in Table 1, the swimming events

performed in the pool are the main focus in warm-up related studies. Corresponding to efforts

ranging from less than 30 s to more than 15 min, it is expected that these different events are

stimulated by different warm-up approaches as well. Considering the studies that used a control

condition (without warm-up), three of the six studies that tested swimming distances up to 50

m or the equivalent effort time presented better performance after warm-up (Carlile, 1956;

Neiva et al., 2011; Thompson, 1958). Some uncertainty continues on distances up to 100 m,

with three of four studies showing improved performance (De Vries, 1959; Neiva et al., 2013;

Romney & Nethery, 1993) as well as between the 100 m and 200 m, with one of two studies

mentioning lower lactate values and higher heart rate (Robergs et al., 1990). Times on the

distances above 200 m were improved after warm-up when considering all of the studies

presented (Houmard et al., 1991; Thompson, 1958). Considering that only submaximal tests

were performed and mainly focused on physiological variables, longer warm-ups should be

indicated when the competition distance is longer.

Researchers have focused mainly on the shorter distances, but the positive effects of warm-up

seem more consistent for distances above 200 m, reinforcing the possible positive effects of

aerobic metabolism stimulation during the warm-up procedures. Moreover, the positive changes

in performance on distances under 200 m were lower than 1% for the time improvement, and

it is unclear how much of this effect was due to warm-up. Caution has to be taken when studying

any measure of performance, and, for instance, it is important to show by how much that

performance measure would be expected to vary day-to-day or test-to-test. Researchers should

be aware of the deficient knowledge about the effects of warm-up in the different competition

distances and swimming techniques, which may be due to the existing lack of warm-up

specificity.


21

Future Research

Some limitations were found in the literature that researched the topic covered in this review.

In fact, it appears that investigations of warm-up’s effects on swimming performance were not

performed for a few years, resulting in a lack of research and resulting restrictions. The

particular swimming pool environment, with a high temperature and humidity, and the

complexity of warm-up procedures could explain why there are few studies on this topic.

Some methodological issues can be observed in the literature and should be overcome in future

research. For instance, the control group or control condition in the study design sometimes

did not exist, and a standard warm-up was compared with other variations of it. This

methodological issue may be relevant to the analysis of the results obtained and should be

considered in the possible conclusions. Additionally, the small sample sizes used in some of the

studies increased the effects of chance and enhanced the ambiguity of the results.

Passive warm-up and dry-land exercises should be deepened as alternative and/or

complementary practice for an active warm-up. Additionally, most of the studies focused on

freestyle swimming, and a study on the warm-up effects on different techniques and swimming

distances should be developed. There is a gap in the research on the influence of the different

subject’s ages, gender, and training status for selecting the proper warm-up. Once some of

these broader issues are clarified, we can evaluate the structure and specificity of the warm-

up practices.

Conclusions

Warm-up is commonly accepted as fundamental, and any priming practices are usually

considered to optimize performance. Specifically in swimming and, despite some contradictory

results, research tends to suggest that warm-up, more particularly the active type, has a

positive effect on the swimmer’s performance, especially for distances above 200 m.

Additionally, the literature proposes that in-water activities are the most useful activities, but

when it is not possible to do in-water warm-up, dry-land exercises can be performed as an

alternative.

Dry-land warm-up should include all body segments. Strength exercises with few repetitions

and high load intensities, vibration stimulation or the use of calisthenics are hypothesized to

better prepare the swimmer for racing. Although there are some doubts about using these

methods, some studies found promising results, with no differences in performance compared

to in-water warm-up. Weight and vibration exercises are not practical to perform before a


22

swimming event, but calisthenics can be used. Further investigation is needed to reach a

consensus about the use of alternative methods of warming up and define its ideal structure in

terms of the type, duration, volume, specific and/or general tasks and recovery period.

Moreover, little is known about dry-land exercise for maintaining the effects of the in-water

warm-up during the waiting time before the swimming race. Additionally, the use of stretching

exercises is common among swimmers as a complement to the in-water warm-up, but the

effects are not known and could even impair the performance. Dynamic stretches are not

detrimental to performance, and a daily routine could be replicated in the warm-up procedures

to prevent possible injuries.

The in-water warm-up should last for 15 to 25 min, and short intensive and specific tasks can

be performed in some parts of the warm-up; there are favorable effects after short distances

of progressive swimming up to the race-pace velocity. However, one should be cautious because

high-intensity swimming during warm-up can be overvalued and may not be essential to

performance optimization. Moreover, some studies presented standard warm-ups with

exclusive lower/upper limb exercises that may achieve better activation for each body part. A

swimming race is performed using the whole body and splitting stimulation of the body may not

be the best way to increase the swimmer’s preparedness. The use of technical drills during

warm-up could increase the swimming efficiency in the first meters by the longer distance per

stroke achieved (Neiva et al., 2013). The recovery period after warming up should be balanced

so that it is sufficient for energy replenishment and so that swimmers can benefit from the

proposed effects of warm-up.

Table 2. Possible recommendations for active warm-up prior to competitive swimming

Setting Recommendation

Main suggestions

In-water warm-up Volume 1,000-1,500 m

Moderate intensity

Drills focussing on stroke efficiency

Short distances at race-pace

Recovery period 8-20 min

Alternative suggestions

Dry-land warm-up Total body stimulation

Calisthenics - moderate intensity

Strength exercises - short sets, heavy loadsa

Vibration exercises on adapted swim bencha

a Hypothesized only.

Because there is a latency period between the in-water warm-up and the swimming race, passive

warm-up should be considered. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, these practices could


23

be used to maintain elevated core and muscle temperatures, which are beneficial for

swimmers. Little is known about the best passive practices to implement, but passive exercise

could be any method that does not elevate the temperature above 39ºC, which would otherwise

impair performance.

Scientists have recently started to study the effects of warm-up on swimming performance, but

numerous doubts remain. Not much is known about the structure and components of warm-up

even though it is still thought to influence performance in a sport where a tenth of a second

could determine success or failure. The results highlight that the volume, intensity and

recovery, and specific exercises of active warm-up are complementary variables. Any change

carried out in one of these characteristics leads to variations in the others, which can influence

the results.

25

Chapter 3. Experimental Studies

Study 2

Does warm-up have a beneficial effect on 100 m freestyle?

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of warm-up on 100 m swimming

performance. Methods: Twenty competitive swimmers (with a training frequency of 8.0 ± 1.0

sessions per week) performed two maximal 100 m freestyle

Date post:	27-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The effect of warm-up on swimming performance - UBI · 2017-02-08 · The effect of warm-up on...

Documents